It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# the Sumerian King list recompiled in Base 10

page: 2
2
share:

posted on Nov, 2 2006 @ 09:59 PM
Wow, who'd've thought the whole issue would be so confusing.

As far as I understand it, Marduk is saying, for example, that the sumerian records say 'Gusur ruled for 1,200 years' and that we should divide it by 60, because they did everything as multiples of 60. That'd mean that, ignoring whether or not Gusur existed, that the sumerians meant to be saying that he ruled for 20 years.

Is this different from what the rest of the academic community is saying that the sumerians are saying he ruled for?

posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 08:32 AM

Originally posted by Nygdan
Wow, who'd've thought the whole issue would be so confusing.

Heh. It's interesting, though.

As far as I understand it, Marduk is saying, for example, that the sumerian records say 'Gusur ruled for 1,200 years' and that we should divide it by 60, because they did everything as multiples of 60. That'd mean that, ignoring whether or not Gusur existed, that the sumerians meant to be saying that he ruled for 20 years.

Actually, convert to base 60. That's not the same thing.

Is this different from what the rest of the academic community is saying that the sumerians are saying he ruled for?

Yes.

Marduk's claim was that the kings list (a document derived from about 11 different sources) translated the numbers wrong. That they used a base 60 number system (this is true) and wrote their numbers in base 60 (also true, though, as he also points out they changed their way of reckoning numbers to base 10 at some point).

We've been trying to tell him that the numbers in the translated English versions of these texts have been corrected by the original translators. That these numbers indicated whether the writer was using a base 60 style of numbering or a base 10... it's part of the way they write their numbers.

He's converted numbers that the ancients wrote in Base 10 (and it says so, proveably, when you look at the original cuneiform inscriptions) into Base 60.

It makes for a smaller number of years, but it ain't right.

posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 08:47 AM

In fact, I do.

thats not very scientific Byrd
and your explanation about the numbers being recorded in bases isn't valid either
like i could write i have lived for %4%^&& years and it would take you another %4%^&& years before you open your mind to see the simplicity of this. neither number is really valid to anything is it unless you know the formula to make it readable

the semites who made this list would not exaggerate anything sumerian at all.
they simply recorded the facts, this is agreed upon by every sumerologist who's ever commented on it
being a scribe was a profession not a hobby
so the numerical error is a valid one
the semites did not know who Dumuzid is yet they recorded him in the ante diluvian kings so they must have been copying an older source without understanding it
the same goes for the rest of it
if you look at the names you will see that the sumerian names in the early part of the list all have long reigns
the semitic named kings do not
I am granting you with the intelligence to be able to tell the difference
the babylonian semites knew their own stuff but they didn't know what went before because the akkadian empire had risen and fallen in between
the fact of it is that the sumerians appeared in meso around 5000bce
and the recompiled king list indicates that they had hereditary kingship around 1500 years after that which is about the same time that they developed language to a point where they could first write it down
thats not too far a stretch of the imagination is it ?

posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 10:11 AM

We've been trying to tell him that the numbers in the translated English versions of these texts have been corrected by the original translators. That these numbers indicated whether the writer was using a base 60 style of numbering or a base 10... it's part of the way they write their numbers.

ah but thats not true
they simply translated all the numbers in the list the same way when what I am saying is that the numbers were originally recorded in two different ways
the usual semitic base 10 and the sumerian method which isn't base 10
this is quite simple Byrd I'm surprised you don't understand what I'm telling you
incidentally how many years have you been studying sumerology and the kings list now ?
and it seems that I'm not the first person to suggest this
just the first person to apply it

Dr. Raul Lopez believes that the information contained in the antediluvian portion of the Sumerian King List may have originated with the Semitic “Noah’s Flood” tradition and thus supports the Genesis account. He believes that the gross discrepancies in the ages can be accounted for quite simply by a major difference between the Semitic numbering system and the Sumerian’s, and the fact that both civilizations used the same symbols to express numbers.

The Semitic people used a decimal (base 10) system like the one we use today. The Sumerians used a sexagesimal (base 60) system. Dr. Lopez believes that the two people groups used the same symbols to express numbers (so that the Semitic “10” shared the same symbol as the Sumerian “60,” etc.) and that when a Sumerian scribe came across a Semitic tablet (or perhaps an oral tradition) purporting to document details concerning the antediluvian kings, he misinterpreted the numbers and his error was passed on.
ner ner

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[edit on 3/11/06 by masqua]

posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 11:52 AM

Originally posted by Marduk
The Sumerians used a sexagesimal (base 60) system. Dr. Lopez believes that the two people groups used the same symbols to express numbers (so that the Semitic “10” shared the same symbol as the Sumerian “60,” etc.) and that when a Sumerian scribe came across a Semitic tablet (or perhaps an oral tradition) purporting to document details concerning the antediluvian kings, he misinterpreted the numbers and his error was passed on.
(My emphasis)

Marduk,
In the bolded portion above, I assume you mean "when a Semitic scribe came across a Sumerian tablet..." right?

Yep, folks, I'm following the discussion. Not very interested in the esoterics of Sumerian numbering systems (sorry Marduk,) but I am fascinated by the spectacle of Byrd trying to do math. I will always endeavor to never miss such a display!

Harte

posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 12:18 PM

Originally posted by Marduk
ah but thats not true
they simply translated all the numbers in the list the same way when what I am saying is that the numbers were originally recorded in two different ways
the usual semitic base 10 and the sumerian method which isn't base 10
this is quite simple Byrd I'm surprised you don't understand what I'm telling you
incidentally how many years have you been studying sumerology and the kings list now ?

If the kings list had been derived from ONE manuscript, maybe. If there were no other examples of written numbers, maybe.

But it's derived from at least 20 different sources. They overlap in time and culture.

The Semitic people used a decimal (base 10) system like the one we use today. The Sumerians used a sexagesimal (base 60) system. Dr. Lopez believes that the two people groups used the same symbols to express numbers

They did.

(so that the Semitic “10” shared the same symbol as the Sumerian “60,” etc.)

They didn't.

These scribes who wrote in cuneiform also left behind lots and lots of multiplication tables which show how they were using numbers. They also leave behind tables of fractions and divisions. When they worked their mathematical problems, they converted things into base 60 because certain operations were easier. Then they converted back to base 10:
it.stlawu.edu...

So the two systems were always in place. They didn't have one and then switch because of a plague or a ruler's whim.

We also know this because there are quite a few "homework texts" for scribes with problems that they had to solve:
it.stlawu.edu...

and that when a Sumerian scribe came across a Semitic tablet (or perhaps an oral tradition)

Sumerian/Semitic scribes were trained in schools, with homework, with standardized practices. They knew the difference in the different number systems and when to use them. There was no huge gap in time where everyone forgot how to write and do math and then suddenly relearned it all. Nor were the various fragments of "kings lists" done in special cases.

In order for your scenario to have happened, every single one of the 20 fragments (found at different times and different places) would have to have scribes who constantly misrepresented numbers. While you might have that on one source (and there are some that disagree with each other), you're not going to have it on all 20 sources.

Lopez's observations don't sit well with all Biblical archaeologists. His ideas aren't well supported by his peers or others.

posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 01:08 PM

Originally posted by Marduk
I am granting you with the intelligence to be able to tell the difference

You're really not going to get anywhere with comments like that. Byrd is a very reasonable and well educated person on these and other matters, there is no need to insult Byrd while having an otherwise civil discussion.

Sumerian King List may have originated with the Semitic “Noah’s Flood” tradition and thus supports the Genesis account

The suggestion is ridiculous, there was no global flood.

[edit on 3-11-2006 by Nygdan]

posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 01:32 PM

You're really not going to get anywhere with comments like that

Granting someone with intellignece in this matter is not an insult
it is a compliment
it wasn't delivered as an insult and I don't believe it was taken as one
if it was I apologise profusely because that is opposite of my intention
you have to understand that this is an intensely complicated subject which is why it isn't talked about much
Byrd is in fact the only person I have discussed this with who does seem to understand what I am saying even if she disagrees
it is in the disagreement over subjects that the people taking part learn the most n'est pas ?
and that goes doubly so for the bystanders

posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 01:40 PM

These scribes who wrote in cuneiform also left behind lots and lots of multiplication tables which show how they were using numbers. They also leave behind tables of fractions and divisions. When they worked their mathematical problems, they converted things into base 60 because certain operations were easier. Then they converted back to base 10:
it.stlawu.edu...

So the two systems were always in place. They didn't have one and then switch because of a plague or a ruler's whim.
:

but thats exactly what happened
Sumerian was spoken in Akkad until akkadian took over and it was so succesful it was used all over the ANE as a diplomatic language even in Egypt
the scribes you are talking about are Babylonian and not Sumerian
there are very few Sumerian tablets of any kind left to show how they did things and these were certainly not understood by someone who could read akkadian and babylonian but not sumerian
Berossus was a case in point. he claimed to be able to read the ancient tablets when writing his history babylonica and that is the book that changed Uan the Babylonian fisherman into Oannes the merman (pseudo favourite "look an amphibious alien") the fact that Uan was based on Sumerian Adapa the fisherman wasn't mentioned by Berossus at all
and Byrd
your claim that they made it up doesnt stand up
theres no precedent for it and its never been claimed for the kings lists of Assyria or Egypt (Manetho excluded) or Hatti or any other

A scribe trained for seven years to learn his trade
that means he's more than twice as dedicated to his profession than the archeologists now digging their leftovers up
and dedicated people don't make things up when they don't know something
thats Pseudo historians youre thinking of
It is well known that the three main king lists that are used by ETCSL to compile the list that I worked from compliment each other perfectly
it is also well know that they were compiled from older sources which have now been lost
so the error that made the sumerian kings reigns 60 times as long as they appeared to the babylonians is very likely indeed and I reiterate it brings the Kings list into a realistic time frame that matches the archaeology of the region
you seem to be trying to dismiss this because of a hunch
what evidence do you have that they made anything up ???

[edit on 3-11-2006 by Marduk]

posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 05:07 PM
I'm not convinced at all because it requires too many unlikely coincidences with large populations. But... let's see what we can find on a few things.

I'd like to know which manuscripts the Kings List came from :
* their age (approx)
* what they were written in
* where they were found
* what's on them (exactly)
* when they stopped using the base 60 method.

Your theory won't hold up if there wasn't a clear break in the list. Babylonian scribes copying the words of scribes a few centuries before (and using the same math system (remember they used both base 10 and base 60... 60 for some things and 10 for others)) would not be making mistakes. For something as important as a king's list, they would have been checked by other scribes.

These tablets would have been official court records.

I'd also like to find out about the transitions. Was there a clear division when one language stopped and another started, what areas did change begin quickly and in which areas did it take longer.

...uhm... there's a few more things I'm sure, but I'm distracted. Let's see what questions we can rationally ask that will prove or disprove one view or the other, okay?

As far as I can see (thinking about this) you would have a strong case if:
* the first part of the list was writen in one language and the rest in another language
* if there was a gap of several hundred years between the documents.
* the second part of the list occurred after they had completely abandoned using the base 60 system.

[edit on 4-11-2006 by Byrd]

posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 08:16 PM

I'd like to know which manuscripts the Kings List came from :
* their age (approx)
* what they were written in
* where they were found
* what's on them (exactly)
* when they stopped using the base 60 method.

the kings list that i used as the basis for this work is the one listed on the Weld-Blundell Prism which dates from 2170bce the other sources are merely variants that were used to correct the spelling of certain kings and in some cases to add descriptions to the names
in most cases I have not used these descriptions as they aren't valid
e.g. Meš-ki-aĝ-gašer has the legend attached on some fragmentary king lists that he "entered the sea and disappeared"
All of the numerical values that I have presented are as they were on the WB prism as it was when translated in 1962. this is therefore known as the WB62 list

a full list of all the tablets translated can be found at
www.b17.com...

so you see
some guy called NURNINSUBUR wrote these down over 4000 years ago
more than 700 years after the Sumerian civilisation had collapsed and the semitic akkadians had taken over
and the semites had a different numbering system for their kings
they didn't use the same one that the sumerians had used for their list which as I pointed out earlier has long been lost
maybe some day it will be recovered from the silt that now covers their cities
but I wouldn't keep my fingers crossed anytime soon
theres a war going on you know

if you wanted me to be really shocking you'd have asked me why it appears that they were using a system that up until then had only been used as a system for measuring distance and area and not time for the antidiluvian kings
and why the lengths of the antidiluvian kings reigns are all precessuional numbers that appear globally in world mythology
but thats why I didn't include that part on the list
you wouldn't believe me
this is just the easy stuff
when you get this part I'll tell you the rest

posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 09:49 AM
interesting thread.will have a proper read of it when i have more time.right now i'm supposed to be working

posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 11:15 AM
uh oh I get the impression someones been doing a background check
you'll never take me alive copper

posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 12:28 PM
ok,have had a good read of it,and i'm still trying to work out the math,lol.i must say though,thankyou for posting such a wonderful thread

posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 05:47 PM
We could continue, though.

It has been a year, however.

posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 08:01 PM
i make it three months
what chronology are you using

posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 08:01 PM

Originally posted by Marduk
i make it three months
what chronology are you using

Uh... Mercurian?

posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 04:26 PM
marduk and byrd

i was interested in books or readings where i can learn more about sumerian mythology. thanks

posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 05:50 PM
start with the old stuff written by Sir Leonard Woolley
www.amazon.co.uk...=nb_ss_w_h_/026-1150545-6319662?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=leonard+woolley

this would give you a general grounding on the Sumerian culture
then move onto books by Samuel Noah Kramer
he specialises in covering the mythology in more depth

www.amazon.co.uk...=nb_ss_b/026-1150545-6319662?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=samuel+noah+kramer

and if you can get hold of a copy

www.amazon.co.uk...=sr_1_1/026-1150545-6319662?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175985676&sr=1-1

this book is excellent
it was written by an assyriologist called Edward Chiera who was terminally ill when he wrote it
he was originally sent to the middle east to prove the bible factual
but like all of the early archaeologists soon found overwhelming evidence to the contrary
in his case
because he was dying
he wasn't worried too much about his career being destroyed by the church
and its a very easy book to read, he would have had quite a career as an author imo if he hadn't got terminal cancer

do not at any point bother with anything that claims the Sumerians were aliens
there is no evidence for that, which is credible

as you get into it
the first thing you'll notice is
that there are no new stories

after youve covered those bases
theres plenty of very modern stuff around
www.amazon.co.uk...=sr_1_3/026-1150545-6319662?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175988711&sr=8-3

see to understand the mythology you also need to understand the culture
imagine if someone told you about christianity (which is also mythology) but you had no frame of reference
it would be pretty meaningless
etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk...*#
this site lists much of the mythological stories that the Mesopotamians wrote themselves

enjoy

[edit on 7-4-2007 by Marduk]

posted on Apr, 8 2007 @ 11:04 AM
marduk

Marduk thanks for the reply,

I AM NOT someone looking for alian-hybrid connections, I actually have been reading about the roots of religion for awhile. I Starded with christian mythology then to the Judism (mythology) and then to eygptian mythology. Now i want to go over to sumer. as i have noticed it all seems to be regurgetated stories with the same common themes.

I AM one of those who aren't satisfied with "have faith" answers.

I enjoy alot of your posts on here and i would post more often but i like to read and look up things more then argue.

[edit on 8-4-2007 by jaydelay]

[edit on 8-4-2007 by jaydelay]

[edit on 8-4-2007 by jaydelay]

top topics

2